Complications, mobility, and quality of life in ankle sarcoma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of the study were to analyze differences in surgical and oncological outcomes, as well as quality of life (QoL) and function in patients with ankle sarcomas undergoing three forms of surgical treatment, minor or major limb salvage surgery (LSS), or amputation. METHODS: A total of 69 patients with ankle sarcomas, treated between 1981 and 2017 at two tumour centres, were retrospectively reviewed (mean age at surgery: 46.3 years (SD 22.0); 31 females (45%)). Among these 69 patients 25 were analyzed prospectively (mean age at latest follow-up: 61.2 years (SD 20.7); 11 females (44%)), and assessed for mobility using the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M; for amputees only), the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score. Individual QoL was evaluated in these 25 patients using the five-level EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and Fragebogen zur Lebenszufriedenheit/Questions on Life Satisfaction (FLZ). RESULTS: Of the total number of patients in the study, 22 (32%) underwent minor LSS and 22 (32%) underwent major LSS; 25 underwent primary amputation (36%). Complications developed in 26 (38%) patients, and were more common in those with major or minor LSS in comparison to amputation (59% vs 36% vs 20%; p = 0.022). A time-dependent trend towards higher complication risk following any LSS was present (relative risk: 0.204; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.026 to 1.614; p = 0.095). In the prospective cohort, mean TESS was higher following minor LSS in comparison to amputation (91.0 vs 67.3; p = 0.006), while there was no statistically significant difference between major LSS and amputation (81.6 vs 67.3; p = 0.099). There was no difference in mean UCLA (p = 0.334) between the three groups (p = 0.334). None of the items in FLZ or EQ-5D-5L were different between the three groups (all p > 0.05), except for FLZ item "self-relation", being lower in amputees. CONCLUSION: 2021;103-B(3):553-561.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".